La La Land (2016)

I had almost exclusively heard amazing, or better, things about Damien Chazelle‘s La La Land, which makes me nervous because normally, the higher the expectations for a film, the bigger the disappointment. speaking generally, I don’t really like musicals, they don’t really make sense – why sing? However, I was hoping for big things from the things I’ve heard. It has received a massive fourteen Oscar nominations! I really hoped that it would live up the hype. As far as the cast goes, Emma Stone stars in one of my favourite all-time movies Zombieland, I also liked her in films like Birdman and The Help. I do not really know Ryan Gosling as well. I saw him in The Nice Guys last year and I liked his performance but other than that I haven’t seen him in anything. I’ve been meaning to watch Drive. The director, Damien Chazelle, I like. I was a big fan of Whiplash, his last directing job. As far as this film goes, I watched a trailer long before watching the film when John Legend was on the Daily Show with Trevor Noah. The plot didn’t seem incredible but the visuals looked incredible so I was interested. I went into this film looking for style and striking visuals, but also paying attention to as many of the subjects nominated by the Academy as possible. With that stuff on my mind, I jumped into the film.

My first impression of the film was that I was really let down. I was expecting an interesting twist on the boy-meets-girl formulae beyond just them hating each other, to begin with. Which, by the way, isn’t really a twist because it is so often ‘done’. I still felt like this at the end of the film as well. I didn’t see anything (other than the creativity in the set and costume design) that I found outstanding, especially the story. The biggest twist in the narrative is that the two protagonists do not end up together in the end. I feel like that is more of a comment on how films have evolved since the golden age of cinema more than anything else and didn’t feel powerful to me. The performances were good but I am not even sure if they were worth nominations over other performances that didn’t get nominations, say, Taraji P. Henson in Hidden Figures(Review). As far as directing went, I was happy with it but it was nothing on Whiplash, but, perhaps it is just because I preferred the content. In fact, let me compare the two Chazelle films for a minute. Whiplash was about clear ambition, an ambition to become a successful entertainer, much like the content of La La Land. However, in, we don’t see that ambition that Miles Teller‘s Andrew showed. Instead, we see, if anything, luck that leads our heroes to a successful resolution – even if there is regret in the end. I enjoyed Whiplash the entire way through because I wanted to see Andrew’s ambition and dedication pay off; we see the literal blood of his efforts, whereas in La La Land we see a bit of crying. I did not like the characters or understand their motivations fully. In Whiplash, we see Andrew’s family and how they don’t idolise him like they do his brothers, whereas, in La La Land, we hear one short, one-sided phone conversation that doesn’t have the same effect but tries to. With saying this, I would have been annoyed if Chazelle had just copied his formulae again, but I thought La La Land was very uninventive and unoriginal, story and narrative wise at least.

To talk about aspects I did like in the film is more of a struggle than in recent reviews but there are some I can say. For instance, the colours of this film were bold and really made key points obvious on-screen. This is most memorable for me when Stone‘s Mia is walked to her car by Gosling‘s Sebastian. She is wearing a bright yellow dress in front of a dark blue sky which really makes her stand out and makes for more than a few visually striking shots. This beauty is running under most of the scenes in this film, which I applaud Chazelle for. However, I feel like it was almost unmotivated beauty. By this, I mean that the fantastical scenes where the characters would float away, or something of the sort, would occur too often to justify motivation. When Mia and Sebastian were in the observatory, the dance in mid-air. This looks very cool and everything, and the director is trying to tell us that they are both experiencing euphoric happiness, but when he uses this dream-like premise again soon after, we don’t believe it as much. Another aspect of the film I could praise was that it had the guts to show a modern ending to the classical formula. This means that it did not end on a ‘happily ever after’ like most of the post-war Hollywood films would rely on. Instead, this film separated the star-crossed lovers and gave them different ideas, both of their dreams achieved, but not in the way that they had hoped because they don’t have each other. This is made abundantly clear through the “what could have been” sequence, that basically goes through most of the film’s events at high speeds, showing what could have happened if they stayed together. Then, with a hopeful smile shared between them, credits roll. I am glad that Chazelle didn’t rely on that classic Hollywood ending as a crutch and rather modernised it. It shows how dreams can remain dreams without compromise. But again, I return to the fact that I don’t remember either of the characters working that hard on their professions to see their dreams pay off and be satisfied. Not even their relationship paid off and that what the film was more dedicated to. I, personally, found the ending unsatisfying but I can appreciate what Chazelle did with the final few minutes as unique.

There were more than a few times where this film referenced classic Hollywood but I would not be bought by nostalgia. The clear point to Casablanca may have felt like realistic dialogue, but it reminded me that I was watching a movie because it was an obvious shout out/call back. I did not appreciate that. Another film referenced was Rebel Without a Cause, and in a similar way, but less extreme, I noticed that it was Hollywood, making a film about Hollywood talking about older Hollywood which took me out of the film. Another aspect of classic moviemaking revived in this film was the use of the crossfade on the tail of romantic scenes. This was undoubtedly well done, but it felt forced to me – perhaps it’s just my stubbornness that is stopping me from liking it, though. Modern day films shouldn’t have to use the cross-fade, in my opinion, it doesn’t look good and it holds little meaning as an editing tool. The one use of this that stands out was at the end of the cinema scene; the two protagonists stare at each other as the scenes transition. It was either that the stare was held for too long of Chazelle used a freeze frame for that transition, but it looked off to me. However, I keep coming back to the writing of the story. It was structured to emphasise beauty more than narrative. I am not entirely sure why people and the academy loved this film so much when I can find so much wrong with it on a critical level. It has shocked me. I assume it is because it is a film about Hollywood that Hollywood would enjoy so much but that is a disappointment.

Overall, I didn’t like this film at all. I am not a fan of musicals to begin with, but when this one doesn’t do anything different with the story, characters, conflict, goals and motivations and it was so ‘hyped’ up by most people and the academy, I am left feeling let down. I found that I didn’t support the characters because of a lack of their motivations – from the off they wanted their dream jobs handed to them. Despite one (Mia) quitting on her dreams, it didn’t suddenly make me support them again. The strengths of this film were definitely the visuals as they were gorgeous and kept me in as a viewer waiting for the next dream. The failure was in the writing. This film has taught me a bit about character motivation, show the audience reasons why they would be emotionally engaged with the payoff. I would only really recommend this film to people who really enjoy musicals and have the ability to just enjoy the music of the film. Or, alternatively, people who haven’t watched a film made after 1965. I do not think this film deserved more than just best director, original song, sound and film editing. I don’t think the performances were better than some others I’ve seen.